There’s a moment in Robert Greenwald’s new documentary, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, that serves as a perfect metaphor for the entire battle between organized labor and the country’s largest private employer.

Josh Noble, an employee of the Tire and Lube Express division of a Wal-Mart in Loveland, Colorado, is attempting to organize 17 of his fellow workers into a union. As the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election approaches, we see Noble with a United Food and Commercial Workers’ (UFCW) advisor going through the list of employees, discussing who’s with them and who’s not. Noble says it looks about 50/50. Later, the organizer cautions Noble that he may have lost the vote of his friend Alicia. “No,” Noble says. “I’ve talked with her quite a bit. She’s just kind of hard to read … I hang out with her on the weekends. But she’s definitely into it. She’s real strong.” Cut to: Alicia Sylvia in her car. Management’s putting the squeeze on and she’s now equivocating. We know what will happen. It’s like watching David sent out to battle Goliath, blindfolded. Without a sling.

When election day finally rolls around Noble loses the election–17 to 1.

It’s not just that Wal-Mart has been winning the ongoing fight with the UFCW, which has been trying to organize the bulk of the company’s 1.2 million employees for the last six years. It’s that its dominance has been so absolute that even the small victories the union has scored have proved to be Pyrrhic. In 2000, when seven of 10 butchers in a store in Jacksonville, Texas, voted to join the UFCW, Wal-Mart responded by announcing that henceforth it would sell only pre-cut meat in all of its supercenters, fired four of the union supporters and transferred the rest into other divisions. (Three years later, the NLRB ruled the decision illegal. Wal-Mart is now appealing.) And in May this year, when workers at a store in Jonquiere, Quebec, voted to unionize, Wal-Mart simply shut the place down. “They wanted to send a message to every other store,” says UFCW spokesperson Chris Kofinis, “‘Don’t you dare unionize.’”

By any means necessary

There’s little secret to Wal-Mart’s success. The company will simply do whatever it takes to keep workers from organizing. “Staying union free is a full-time commitment,” reads one of the company’s training manuals. “[F]rom the Chairperson of the ‘Board’ down to the front-line manager … [t]he entire management staff should fully comprehend and appreciate exactly what is expected of their individual efforts to meet the union free objective.”

Managers are trained to call a special hotline at the first sign of suspicious behavior, including “employees talking in hushed tones to each other.” After the call, the company’s notorious labor relations division headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, will swing into gear, often dispatching a company jet to the afflicted store, bearing members of its crack team of union busters. Management will convene mandatory meetings with each associate and screen anti-union videos.

Former managers, like Stan Fortune, who worked for Wal-Mart for 17 years and then went to work for UFCW, say the store also illegally follows union sympathizers and spies on its employees with cameras in break rooms. “One of their favorite tactics is to say, ‘We need to freeze all raises in the store because it can’t appear that we’re bribing anybody,’ ” Fortune says in the film.

And then Wal-Mart will find a way to get rid of troublemakers. That’s what spelled the end of Fortune’s career as a manager at the company. In 2001 Fortune was managing a Wal-Mart in Weatherford, Texas, when his boss instructed him to fire an employee suspected of talking to the union. “I told him ‘I’m not firing him,’ ” Fortune says. “‘That’s illegal’ … He got in my face and said, ‘You fire him or I’m going to fire you.’ ” A week later, Fortune was gone. “I filed for unemployment and the state found I was fired without cause. That’s when I found out that means nothing in the real world.”

Since 1999 the UFCW and others have filed more than 300 charges against Wal-Mart with the NLRB, accusing the company of, among other transgressions, firing employees for suspected union activity in violation of the Wagner Act. In a third of these cases, the local NLRB office has issued a formal complaint and attempted to prosecute the company, but it hardly matters to the behemoth because even if the full NLRB rules against Wal-Mart, the resulting penalties are a pittance. Wal-Mart didn’t return calls for comment, but generally they deny ever breaking the law.

In April, the UFCW threw in the towel and decided to start from scratch. Instead of seeking to organize workers store by store, it launched WakeUpWalMart.com, a public awareness campaign designed to educate the public about Wal-Mart’s business impact and negative community effects. A coalition led by SEIU, Democracy for America and the Sierra Club has launched a similar project called WalMartWatch.com.

Cause or effect?

Wal-Mart deserves just about all the bad press it gets, and its recent commercials stressing what a gosh-darn great place it is to work would suggest that these efforts are having some effect. But because there’s been so much focus on Wal-Mart’s misdeeds, it’s easy to surmise that the company is a kind of outlier, and that the rest of corporate America would never stoop to such techniques. This is simply not the case. “The right to organize in the United States is on the verge of extinction,” says Andy Levin, director of the AFL-CIO’s [email protected] campaign. “Wal-Mart’s not a bad apple–it’s the very symbol of a rotten system.”

A book-length report on U.S. labor practices released by Human Rights Watch in 2000 found that “workers’ freedom of association is under sustained attack in the United States, and the government is often failing its responsibility under international human rights standards to deter such attacks and protect workers’ rights.” Certifying a new union local through an NLRB election, which requires emerging victorious from several months of active campaigning by employers, 75 percent of whom hire union-busting firms, has become so difficult that unions hardly even bother anymore.

“If you look at the historical trends, 50 years ago, an average of 500,000 workers formed unions through the NLRB process every year,” says Levin. “And the number of workers whose rights were violated in that process, according to the NLRB, was generally in the high hundreds or low thousands. Fast forward to today. The private sector workforce is twice as large, but the number that organized through elections last year was 80,000. The number of workers whose rights were violated, according to the NLRB, is over 20,000. And that’s literally the tip of the iceberg. Most people’s rights are violated probably before there’s a union on the scene to file a complaint.”

Employers don’t have to break the law to be effective. They can legally require supervisors to actively campaign against the union upon pain of termination and they can require employees to attend one-on-one pressure sessions with their bosses. “No other industrialized democracy allows this,” says Levin. But even if they do break the law there are no punitive damages or large fines. In fact, employers simply have to give back pay minus what the fired employee was making at his or her subsequent job. “Many employers have come to view remedies like back pay for workers fired because of union activity as a routine cost of doing business,” says the Human Rights Watch report. “As a result, a culture of near-impunity has taken shape in much of U.S. labor law and practice.”

For several years, Levin and others at the AFL-CIO have been attempting to build support for legislation that would chip away at this “culture of near-impunity.” The Employee Free Choice Act, which currently has 204 sponsors in the House and 40 in the Senate, would legally recognize a bargaining unit if a simple majority of workers signed a card endorsing unionization. It would also create binding arbitration for the first contract a newly certified union negotiates, and increase penalties for employer violations. Similar legislation has come close to passing in the past, but has often fallen victim to filibusters from corporate friendly senators.

Such legislation isn’t necessary in countries where workers’ rights are already protected. In Germany, Wal-Mart has bought out several stores that were already unionized, and they have stayed unionized. Since Wal-Mart isn’t in the charity business, it’s safe to assume those stores are quite profitable. In the film, Greenwald interviews workers there who proudly speak of health benefits and six weeks of paid vacation. One woman says she doesn’t understand–why can’t her American colleagues form a union?

It’s a damn good question.

Research assistance for this article was provided by Robert Greenwald, the producer/director of Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. In an unprecedented journalistic collaboration, The Nation, The American Prospect and AlterNet will also tackle stories and themes showcased in the film.

Whattheheck:
Sorry to have kept you waiting for a response. IPosted by Anarcho-Sozi on 2005-11-23 14:15:52

The following is a comment I sent in response to an editorial which was very pro Wal-Mart. It is from my own experience with a client whose packaging I designed in the mid 1980s.
It actually took about a decade and the screws were made in several countries over that time Posted by whattheheck on 2005-11-18 09:32:15

Blah blah blah...boycott Wal Mart
Blah blah.
I've been boycotting them for about a year, since they closed the store in Quebec that tried to organize. I don't think they miss my money much.
I've noticed how we've turned underdeveloped countries into our sweat shops, and turned our own country into a management and service industry, headed by a group of people who inherited wealth, and were crass enough to exploit that advanatge even further....sociopathy is so much more than convenience store bandits and serial killers, don't you think?
I wonder about the system that props up this 'bull in the china shop' corporation.
Wal Mart is as easy to push over as the disabled greeter they got rid of once 'dead peasant insurance' became unpopular...the younger, healthier specimens they require now for their drudgery factory will thrive and kick our asses ...if they don't move on to a more hospitable work environment through their native intelligence.
In the mean time, until there are better options for all of us, I'll support the anti Wal Mart folk, and continue my boycott...but it's getting harder and harder to buy food and clothing made locally...and I'm a wage pig myself, and have
little time to make my own.
Maybe if our schools spent more than a week or two on 'Economics' we'd have the necessary skills and insight to make wise, or at least wiser, decisions.Posted by minerva on 2005-11-17 13:00:50

Americans knowingly and unknowingly support crummy sweatshop life
in China. Who comes out ahead? The Chinese government and Wall Street, not middleclass american workers or consumers.
This could be the situation if middleclass americans on all sides of the aisle if more is not demanded of our respective politicians. Before 1980 when it came to american jobs both sides tried to keep jobs in america. Then this global economy nonsense was introduced big time and middleclass america
was tricked into believing that this was a great thing. Next thing we know politicians had crafted tax laws making it attractive for USA industry to move abroad and pay people 17 cents an hour to produce goods with a USA name on it. The only part that remained in america was a home office. General Motors makes most of it's parts in China and is preparing to shut down more plants and taking more manufacturing to China. Wal-Mart is the largest exporter in China...yep they export 11% of chinese manufactured goods to all of their stores here and abroad.
Both parties more or less subcribe to Fair Trade approach. It has not been working towards creating well paid jobs for the american middleclass. Credit card debt is one obvious indicator.
Fair trade: Creating jobs at home means opening markets abroad. The Democratic Party supports fair trade agreements that raise standards for workers abroad while making American business more competitive. We will also fight for stronger enforcement of our existing trade agreements.
This is simply not working. It's not working for slave labor abroad either.
Does anyone ever wonder why a pair of slick looking basketball shoes manufactured at 17 cents an hour retails for $150.00...think about it.
How about creating tax incentives to bring jobs back home and creating new green jobs through alternative energy? It seems like all we get is rhetoric.
So why are members of both parties so complacent on this matter? Campaign funds. The Reagan,Bush and Bush people have screwed up jobs for americans. Democrats on the other hand seem to have gone along with it because it appeared Reagan was a popular president. Should lousy legislation pass simply because a president is popular? No way jose.
The bottom line is we need to demand more of our politicans... not having them tell us what we need. Middleclass americans and consumers need to step up and decide who our candidates will be and set the agenda as well.
The first items on the list should be:
1. Jobs back to America...provides more revenue for our government instead of the Chinese government.
2.Healthcare for Americans after all we provide healthcare for millions of city,state and federal employees with middleclass tax dollars. Everybody deserves medical care.
3. We need/want the best public education. No Child Left Behind needs to be gone. It is an expensive mandate that is not conducive to learning.
4. Clean air and water must be priority in America...bring it all back.
5. Restore relationships with the rest of the world. The longer we stay in Iraq the more difficult this project will be.
6. Bring on alternative forms of energy. This will not only reduce our need for oil it will create thousands of new jobs for skilled labor.
7. Bring the war for oil to an end.
8. Let's do business with the rest of the world but not at the expense of middleclass america.
The neocons must go. We need some new democrats as well as moderate republicans. Green Party thinkers where we can get them.Posted by merrill on 2005-11-17 06:52:18

Anarco-Sozi,
Trade (business) has been the backbone of social interchange since the caveman swapped a deer for a bunch of arrowheads.
Empire? The Spanish American War was the last time the U.S. exercised any empirical tendencies. All of those territories are now either independent or, In the case of Puerto Rico have had access to mainland U.S. (There are more Puerto Ricans in New York than the home country.)
Last I knew Japan, Italy and Germany were all free, independent and democratic countries. South Korea Posted by whattheheck on 2005-11-11 13:53:38

Seemingly incongruous decisions? Sorry, whattheheck, but the long-term pattern is totally clear in the case of the USA - from the Spanish-American war and the initial occupation of the Phillipines onward: making the world safe for American business. In another word: empire.
This is not what this topic is about, but I will submit the following overall judgement and then remain silent on this:
Of the two "partners" (enemies) in the Cold War, the US was the more consistent and aggressive (particularly wherever "democracy raised its ugly head" (in places like pre-Shah Iran and pre-Pinochet Chile, for example) to quote Chomsky.)
Now that the Cold War is over and the "excuse" it provided for US aggression, we see the ugly naked face of US foreign policy.Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on 2005-11-10 12:51:38

Anarcho-Sozi,
My comment to Rabbit was in response to his having said in effect, Posted by whattheheck on 2005-11-10 10:20:57

My Thanks to all the above writers. I had nearly forgotten what it felt like to read and participate in intelligent conversations, without the inane comments and personal attacks from the right that have come to be a frequent feature of these forums.Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on 2005-11-09 23:21:54

A short aside to whattheheck:
I was not 15 in 1979 but 25 - so I remember all your examples except for Berlin 1949 and Hungary 1956, albeit from the perspective of "the other side"...
Far be it from me to deny that the Soviets were a threat - it is a threat I lived under. But let's not forget things like the American-British coup overthrowing a democratically elected Persian leader to install the Shah in 1954 (?), the Bay of Pigs, the attack on and occupation of South Vietnam, US support for the murderous Somoza regime in Nicaragua, the overthrow of Allende, Iran-Contra, the mining of Nicaraguan harbours (for which the US was convicted by the world court), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,...Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on 2005-11-09 13:54:22

I myself was on a works committee for four years.
As far as trade unions are concerned, there is no such thing as a "closed shop" here. Membership is entirely voluntary. And it is a guaranteed right of every worker. I have been a member of a union all my working life (actually, of many different unions due to career changes) - in the days of East Germany, membership was obligatory, but unions had a different function in the state socialist system. Under capitalism, I consider membership simply a moral obligation, since it is the unions who do the bargaining and arrive at the collective agreements for entire industries.
This was the "normal citizen" in me speaking - who has to provide for a family, etc. The anarchist in me works and longs for a truly just and free society - without hierarchy, without the management-employee dichotomy...Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on 2005-11-09 13:24:26

I hesitate to discuss anything involving German society on this forum for fear that JC the CJ might chime in with some more idiotic Lederhosen-Romantik comments on (virtually) non-existent autumn harvest festivals or our lack of ability to queue up at bus stops to prove how familiar he is with the country...
... but the article mentioned Walmart in Germany and I felt I had to comment. Walmart has had a very tough stand here - and there are justified hopes they will close down and go away. There have been many articles in the business press about how German consumers are uncomfortable with (at best - many reject Walmart totally) the whole philosophy of the company. They just don't feel comfortable being in their stores. I myself have never been in a Walmart - I only know of the existence of two of them here in the former East Germany - so I can't comment in more detail.
As far as their labour policies are concerned, the company simply has no choice when it comes to basic worker rights. In principle, the American company bosses must absolutely hate Germany. I assume they're here just on principle, since it is a big, important economy. The law dictates that their regularly employed staff must have legally-binding employment contracts - and these include things like six-weeks of paid holiday a year, protection from being fired, the employer paying half of the retirement tax and mandatory comprehensive health insurance, etc. And an important right is the right to have a works committee - a body consisting of employees that is voted into office by the employees (once every four years). It sits in on management decisions on all aspects of company policy - and has 50 per cent of the say. In addition, the works committee meets regularly (once a week is the norm) to deal with work-related issues, workers' complaints, problems, etc. They try to resolve these issues - when they can't, they then take them to management. The size of the works committee depends on the number of employees. A company the size of Walmart will have to allow for some full-time representatives on the committee. Full-time members are freed from all their regular duties - and spend 100 per cent of their time as representatives of the interests of the staff.
All members of the works council have a right to be sent to courses at certain intervals (at the expense of the company) in all sorts of areas involving employment law, psychology, public-speaking training, etc.Posted by Anarcho-Sozi on 2005-11-09 13:10:00

Kenneth,
It is next to impossible to Posted by whattheheck on 2005-11-09 06:03:05

And as obvious as this trend toward killing off what's left of the middle class in this country is, you would think alarm bells would be sounding in the halls of government. Instead they suggest ending the home mortgage deductions and counting employee health benefits as taxable income, cutting medicaid, food stamps, and other social programs, while giving the top 3% another 70 billion in tax cuts. And Bush has now borrowed from foreign banks, more money than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED, funneling it to his cronys in the form of tax cuts and no bid contracts. This is a criminal enterprise, not a government.Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on 2005-11-08 23:55:46

One thing which is strongly in Wal-MartPosted by whattheheck on 2005-11-08 11:08:31

Wal-MartPosted by whattheheck on 2005-11-08 09:53:15

Rabbit had some experiences with Big-W here, the same thing, probably the same corporation for all I know. These experiences were in 1979, I was a casual and fifteen. There and then Rabbit resigned, and vowed never to have more to do with corporate employers, and I have watched them grow and spread like a terrible cancer since. Back then nobody else would dare treat their employees so bad, now this is the norm. The big corporations set the standard, such that they inevitably bring down standards for everyone. They get away with it for long enough until it just becomes the way things are done, and with their lobbying of government they finally get the law to be brought into line with their idea of what's good for them. Thus the whole workforce is affected eventually.Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-07 16:05:54

I was in a situation nearly identical to Josh Noble's. I was trying to organize fellow employees at a non union Pulitzer newspaper. Of the 16 employees in our unit, 14 signed cards that requested a vote on unionization. 12 commited firmly to vote yes. 10 remained firm during the lengthy campaign. On election day, I lost 14-2.
What happened? One employee had his personnel record cleared of a serious reprimand. One recieve a performance raise that just three months earlier he had been refused. The rest weren't talking, but each and everyone of these "bribes" were illegal under NLRB laws. But the process to prove the charges would have been arduous and lengthy.
Six months later I was laid off.Posted by AshC on 2005-11-07 07:53:40

Since he is an early Rabbit the post is re-done with the electrons in line this time.

A book-length report on U.S. labor practices released by Human Rights Watch in 2000 found that Posted by Rabbit on 2005-11-07 01:54:23